I knew 2 WWII vets that served with Patton. One loved him and the other hated him. The one that hated him spoke of the "callous" Patton but he respected the General. He served with Patton as far back as N Africa. He was back with Patton sometime after Normandy again. My friend, Pat Patterson was a real character complete with a chest full of Medals. My friend said Patton told a large formation of men, "We're going home ........ by way of Berlin." The men were moaning and groaning.

Ac-, Gen Arthur MacArthur was a Medal of Honor winner and a hero in his own right during the Civil War. Had Patton lived I can't help but wonder what a team of MacArthur & Patton would have been like in Korea.

Patton may not have been honored with a base for a few reasons. First, some would consider him very callous, and perhaps cruel with the lives of his men. Second, he was insubordinate at times. Sure, Patton was a good tactician, but he also had an incredible ego. I think we don't want to encourage that kind of behavior in officers.

Oh, speaking of which, in LaLa land, we have an Army base - Ft. MacArthur. It was, in fact, not named for Gen. Douglas, but for his father, Gen. Arthur, who also fought for the Union at the historic Battle of Franklin, TN.

Ac, "War of Northern Aggression"? I denote a possible Southern heritage from you. I have read quite a lot about Maj Bong. Though he taught gunnery school in the states he is remembered by his peers as out flying his foes. All this from a former Eastern Airline pilot.

In 1967 I was stationed at Ft Hood for about 5 months. I never saw one picture of Gen Hood on the base. However I did see an old Patton tank. Considering this Ft was the home of the 1st & 2nd Armored divisions you would think the Fort would have been named for Patton who was a tank man.

"You know, in American English, we used to say "These United States" (Emphasizing "these states"). Now we say "THE United States, emphasizing "UNITED'."

Either way, though, the idea was that they were 'united'. The war of Northern Aggression had more to do with the role of the Federal Government. The South didn't think that it should be able to override individual State's, the North disagreed.

Hard to be 'united' with this kind of attitude. The very fact that they tried to secede shows their lack of belief that they were truly 'united'.

I used to snicker about the "Bong Rec Area", for obvious reasons.. But yes, Major Richard Bong was a heck of a P-38 pilot, and took out a whole lot of Japanese planes. In fact, they let him roam the skies of the South Pacific specifically to run up his score.

Weaslespit - You know, in American English, we used to say "These United States" (Emphasizing "these states"). Now we say "THE United States, emphasizing "UNITED'. And the pending question was: "Do the states have the right to seceed?" Obviously the outcome ultimately was decided by the outcome of the "War of Northern Aggression."

Yeah Pan I laughed at the "Bong hit" again this morning. You are back on my Christmas mailing list until the next time we get into it. Which no doubt will be the next time I read a post and I disagree with you. Btw a hit by Major Bong in a fully armed P-38 would be devastating. "Bong Hit", you're killing me.Have a great weekend.

It is true that somewhere over the past 200 years or so, The United States has changed largely from a plural noun to a singular one. Before the 20th Century, probably most Americans were born and died without ever leaving their state of birth, so it makes sense that there was more allegiance to that state than to the Union as a whole. In his excellent book "Lincoln at Gettysburg", Garry Wills argued that President Lincoln initiated this change to a more federal view of the Union just by presenting it pretty much as a fait accompli in the Gettysburg Address.

Weasel: <<<"They didn't fight for their country. They fought for their State - which is kinda the point.">>>

--One thing that seems to be lost lately is that our country is supposed to be a collection of multiple states that are united. That was the concept of our country back at that time. Your thinking this through in today's terms, where each state has somehow inexplicably become subsidiaries of the federal government.

"Hood and all the rest of the confederate Generals are part of history. I say leave it alone."

Yes, they are a part of our history, but not our best... If the point is to honor Hood, I cannot agree but if the point is to remember our past lest we repeat past mistakes, I would agree to leave it alone.

"The same could be said for an aircraft carrier named for Fleet Admiral William Halsey."

"Not respect for the cause, but respect for brave men who fought for their country"

They didn't fight for their country. They fought for their State - which is kinda the point.

"Now, of course, history has prove the whole concept was wrong, but you can't fault the average guy for believing in his state and the rights of his individual state."

You do realize that this was all selfishly motivated, yes? There was no 'greater good', they simply didn't want to have to pay heed to the Federal Government as they didn't like what they were implementing despite their own representation in said government. They went outside of the Democratic process and rebelled against their country. I don't see any honor in killing your brother over your own selfish interests. Sorry.

sgm - I don't like the term "rebel". Why not use the term "Confederate", and do so with respect. Not respect for the cause, but respect for brave men who fought for their country and their rights. Now, of course, history has prove the whole concept was wrong, but you can't fault the average guy for believing in his state and the rights of his individual state.

By the way, Gen. John Bell Hood was a graduate of West Point and known to be an aggressive commander. Unfortunately, he let his pride get the better of him when the Federals (whom he had outflanked), made a night retreat around him at the Duck River, near Columbia, TN. After that, he assembled the Army of Tennessee and made a run at them at Franklin, TN. It was foolish of Hood to attack these fortified positions, but he did so anyway. Six of his generals were shot dead, and the Army of Tennessee was impotent thereafter. I was just in Franklin for a time, and it was historically very interesting.

Zimcity, "Interesting that Panama19 would bring up a 7 year old story to apply his typical broad brush strokes indicting the 'The mental functioning on the left' when it was two very wrong minded students who were obviously clueless about history"

The mental functioning of the left in a 7 year old story is the same as the mental functioning of the liberals that want to rename Ft. Hood.

Interesting that Panama19 would bring up a 7 year old story to apply his typical broad brush strokes indicting the "The mental functioning on the left" when it was two very wrong minded students who were obviously clueless about history.

sgm4law, "Interesting that you could compare the two things; interest in not honoring people who led the armed rebellion in our country, and idiots who would bar honoring a Marine who fought for our country. Those are two completely different things and yet you conflate them"

No, the idiots on the left are the same in both cases, and are trying to rewrite history in the shallowest possible way.

It is proper for the military to honor superior professional military leaders by naming bases, ships, and weapons systems after them.

There were honorable and courageous military men on both sides during the Civil war who were fighting for their homeland. That war is over now and we are ALL Americans again.

The actions of the leaders on BOTH sides are not diminished by the final outcome of the war.

Should we rename the Apache attack helicopter because the Apaches attacked and killed Americans in the Indian wars - before they were defeated?

The Apaches were daring and capable fighters even if they lost the war - and they are all Americans now.

It is petty and ignorant in the extreme to go off on these foolish tangents over wars that have been over a century or more.

Just as it was petty and ignorant for the students at UW to dishonor an alumni because he did not share their narrow views on citizenship and patriotism.

What is the point?

What is gained by dishonoring the sacrifices of valiant warriors of the past?

"Those are two completely different things and yet you conflate them."

That is his modus operandi...

"I am sure that was just to soothe war wounds at the time. Those have been soothed. Let's move on."

It was opened in 1942 so I don't think it had anything to do with soothing Civil War wounds. Also in 1942, acts of hate had started to escalate and the rebel flag started to take on a new meaning in the South...

"- Lincoln's Second Inaugural"

Quote Lincoln all you want, naming this Fort could indeed have been based in malice towards some, just not those you are thinking of. Perspective.

btc1, "The Army probably should have never named these military installations after Confederate Officers in the first place"

Fort Hood was named for the Confederate General John Bell Hood, who gained recognition during the Civil War as the commander of Hood's Texas Brigade. Gen. Hood was a "home town boy" in a state that joined the Confederacy.

Today Texas is still in the Union, and Gen. Hood is still a "home town boy" that fought for his state in the late unpleasantness between the states.

For people today to still harbor the vitriol in their hearts to deny recognition to men that fought for their home lands in a war that split brother from brother and father from son is really rather low-minded and ignorant of our history, IMHO.

This is not unprecedented among liberals, however.

Another American war hero and top fighter ace was Gregory 'Pappy' Boyington, who flew with the Flying Tigers over China before we entered WWII, then commanded the 'Black Sheep' squadron in the Pacific, downed 26 enemy aircraft before being shot down himself over Rabaul in a melee involving 30 American fighters against 70 Japanese fighters - and then survived for 20 months in Japanese prison camps. Col. Boyington was awarded the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross for his actions.

I just do not see how this is something to get this upset over. The Army probably should have never named these military installations after Confederate Officers in the first place. I am sure that was just to soothe war wounds at the time. Those have been soothed. Let's move on.

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations"